and ‘Acro’ in early modern printed editions
(1474—1838)
Paulina Taraskin
King’s College London paulina.taraskin@gmail.comRecepción: 11/07/2013, Aceptación: 25/10/2013, Publicación: 20/12/2013
Abstract
Reviewing the printing fortune of ancient scholia on Horace, Porphyrio and ‘Acro’, I examine the degree of importance attached to ancient scholia before they appeared in nineteenth-century critical editions. To what purpose were the scholia first printed? Where did they stand in relation to contemporary commentaries?
Keywords
Horace; scholia; Porphyrio; ‘Acro’; printing; editions
Resumen
Porfirio y Acrón, escolialistas de Horacio, en ediciones modernas (1474 - 1838)
Se revisa la fortuna impresa de escolios antiguos sobre Horacio, Porfirio y Acrón, y se analiza la relevancia de los escolios antiguos antes de que aparecieran en ediciones críti-cas del siglo diecinueve. ¿Con qué propósito se imprimieron escolios por primera vez? ¿Qué relación guardan con los comentarios contemporáneos?
Palabras clave
Carolingian scholars preserved for us two blocks of late antique Horace scholia:1 they revised the late third-century commentary of Pomponius Porphyrio2 and compiled a heterogeneous body of marginalia, now known as Pseudo-Acro.3 The latter body of scholia was detached from the Horace text by the humanists and, circa 1400, received the attribution to the second-century commentator Hele-nius Acro.4 Renaissance scholars’ enthusiasm for ancient scholia is apparent from the 48 fifteenth-century manuscripts of ‘Acro’ and 22 manuscripts of Porphyrio.5 Early printers — as we shall presently see — also placed a high value on ‘Acro’ and Porphyrio, but the printing career of these corrupt and fragmentary scholia was far from secure.
Let us review printed editions of Porphyrio and ‘Acro’, in order to gauge the importance attached to ancient Horace scholia by their publishers. We shall examine physical appearance, layout, content of the editions and observe the position accorded to ancient scholia in relation to contemporary commentar-ies. Prefatory remarks by the editors and their collaborators should clarify the purpose of the publications and, sometimes, reveal an interest in the scholiasts’ identity or expectations of the scholia genre.
This overview is accompanied by a chronological Index of Editions contain-ing ancient scholia.6 In my discussion, I shall refer to the editions by their date,
1. This article is a byproduct of the author’s study of medieval Horace scholia, Reading
Horace (forthcoming), which contains a survey
of scholarship on Horace scholia copied and compiled in that period.
2. Ancient, medieval, and some Renaissance
Testimonia de Porphyrione are appended to
Holder’s edition (1894). Summary descrip-tions are offered by Borzsák (1998), Schmidt (1997), Nisbet and Hubbard (1970: xlviii— xlix). Recent discussions are provided by Died-erich (1999) and Kalinina (2007).
3. The two main components of the Pseudo-Acro compilation were identified and charac-terised by Noske as fifth-century Expositio A on lyric and ninth-century Paragraphon scholia on opera omnia, based on a six-century com-mentary (1969: 269—76). Interesting points are discussed by Nisbet and Hubbard (1970: l—li) and more extensively by Borzsák (1998). 4. The misattribution to Acro was noted by Keller, the most recent editor of ‘Pseudo-Acro’scholia (1903: 311—7; 1904: ix—x). The manuscript containing the original attribution is described by Noske (1969: xvi—xvii). A comprehensive recent note is offered by Munk Olsen (2009: 35—6).
5. Cf. Villa (1994: 127—34).
6. I have so far come across no catalogue of Horace scholia editions. The Horace vol-ume of the Kristeller Catalogus (1960—) has yet to appear in print, while his Iter Italicum (1963—) lists only Renaissance manuscripts. An extensive index of publications of Horace’s text with and without commentary is provided by Zeune (1825: 1941—91); a more recent, but less comprehensive and not entirely reliable list is offered by Lenchantin de Gubernatis (1945: liii—vi = 1958—1960: xlv—vii). Overviews of commented Horace editions, without a specific focus on ancient scholia, are offered by Niutta (1993), Rocca (1996), and, in greatest detail, by Iurilli (1994). All three studies mention ancient commentaries only in the context of early edi-tions. Iurilli’s enlarged 2004 publication deals mainly with the Italian reception of Horace, but the final chapter summarising Horace’s fortuna in the 18th century mentions Baxter 1701 and
place of publication, and — where appropriate — publisher or editor. The full and often cumbersomely extensive titles of editions are given in the Index.
The date of Horace’s editio princeps is uncertain.7 Ancient scholia form part of the first dated Horace edition, brought out in 1474 by the Milanese publisher Antonio Zarotto (Zarothus) with the financial backing of Marco Roma:8 its first volume printed on the 16th of March contains Horace’s complete works, the sec-ond volume printed on the 13th of August contains ‘Acro’.9 At about the same time in Rome, Francesco Marchese (Marchisius) and Angelo Sabino, with the financial backing of Giovanni Luigi Toscani, bring out an edition of Horace’s lyric and Ars Poetica,10 where the commentaries of Acro and Porphyrio follow each poem. Horace’s opera omnia with both commentaries are produced ca 1481, in Venice or Treviso, by the poet Ludovico Strazzaroli Pontifico (de Strazarolis) and Raffaele Regio, who taught in Padua and Venice.11 Unlike the Roman edition, this one accompanies Horace with Acro alone; Porphyrio, edited by Regio, is placed separately at the front of the volume. Zarotto emulates this format in his second edition of 1485,12 but the 1486 reprint, edited and sponsored by Alessan-dro Minuziano, brings a change: Porphyrio’s commentary, labelled ‘Porphyrio’ in capitals, follows the (unlabelled) Acronian notes after each poem.13
The Roman, Trevisan, and 1486 Milanese editions contain prefatory letters of dedication, which reveal something of the publishers’ concerns. In the ca 1474 Roman edition, Toscani facetiously remarks to his colleague Marchese that their undertaking will be criticised as adulterous, irreverent, and off-putting for the student and that their daring juxtaposition of poetry with commentaries will be ridiculed, in Horace’s own words, as adding a human head to a horse’s body.14
7. The oldest editions listed in the
Gesamtkata-log der Wiegendrucke IX (Leipzig 2008) are the
Venetian 1471 edition by Basilius (GW 13449) and the Neapolitan 15/11/1474 edition by Ar-nold von Brüssel (GW 13450).
8. Ganda (1980: 111, 125).
9. The method of publishing commentary sep-arately from the text was a feature of five early Servius editions (1470—1475), catalogued by Mambelli (1954).
10. Bianca (1987: 234) and Iurilli (1994: 582) note that the popularity of lyric is a post-Petrar-ch fashion, when lyric also becomes the subject of contemporary commentary. For the popular-ity of the Ars Poetica in the 15th century see
Friis-Jensen (1995: 229—230).
11. The place of printing in unknown. Cata-logues, including theIndice generale degli incu-naboli delle biblioteche d’Italia III (Rome 1954)
andGesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke IX (Leipzig
2008), identify Venice as the likely location.
Tre-viso, home town of de Strazarolis ‘Travisanus’, and Padua, from where Regio addresses his ded-ication to Venetian noble Morosini, have been suggested as alternatives.
12. Zarotto apparently borrows the titulus for the newly added Porphyrio from the 1481 Ven-ice/Treviso edition.
In the same edition, Marchese complains about the corrupt state of the text and the need to rely on a single Acro exemplar.15 Marchese’s publication of lyric and the Ars is mentioned as «Romae nuper impressa duntaxat demidiata» in the 1481 edition, where Regio urges the reader to compare it with the superior quality of his own new text. However, Regio’s collaborator Strazzaroli calls his bluff: in the dedication of the Horace-cum-Acro part of the same volume he la-ments that the three Acro manuscripts available to him are far from satisfactory:
de Acrone autem, cuius tria habebamus volumina, nullum fere verbum, ne dicam sententiam, aderat in uno quod idem in aliis aut adesset aut non depravatum si aderat legeretur : perinde ac si non unum sed diversos exponerent Horatios...
The situation with Porphyrio’s text is much the same. In words to be echoed by many after him, Regio praises Porphyrio to the skies and bewails the poor state of the commentary, hoping that his own efforts at emendation may prove satisfactory.16 The 1486 reprint of Zarotto’s 1485 (second) edition is prompted by the discovery of a new exemplar. In the dedication to Bartolomeo Calco, Alexander Minuziano regrets the corrupt state of the former unique exemplar and boasts of his new find:
…itaque hos libros studiosissime quantum sub unico exemplari, eoque temporum iniuria exeso librariorumque incuria mendosissimo, recognovimus. caeterum im-pressis libris et recognitione iam publicata, venit ad manus meas Porphyrio quidam antiquissimus…
It is notable that ancient scholia, whatever the quality of their text, were considered a worthwhile investment for the printer.
avidum tironem si quasi delibaverit litteras ne non sine interprete Oratii mentem percipere posse videatur a legendo avertere, atque telam artificis omnem disrumpere. separatim hec im-primi utilius et commodius fuisse, magisque ad dignitatem singulos collaturos quam coniunc-tos, iustius quoque quod suum est unicuique volenti reddi debuisse quam in communionem redigi incitos: nihil aliud hoc esse quam hu-mano capiti cervicem iungere equinam...» Iurilli points out the novelty of combining two com-mentaries (1994: 582).
15. Marchese to Toscani (ca 1474, Rome): «...sed hoc mihi molestum fuit, quod in his Horatii libris qui te maxime hortante impressi sunt, non eam quam vehementer optassem emendationis exhibere diligentiam potui, at certe quantum in me fuit et curam omnem et studium adhibui, sed Acronis exemplaria ut
scis defuere: unum habuimus nec id quidem satis emendatum...» I thank Carlotta Dioni-sotti for observing that this exemplar of Acro may well be Zarotto’s edition.
The fifteenth century saw the appearance of several new commentaries: on the Ars by Tommaso Schifaldo and Martino Filetico, on lyric by Antonio Cal-cillo (Chalcidius).17 Calcillo had lectured on Horatian lyric in Rome in 1465-1466. The commentary arising from Filetico’s ca 1470-1471 course on the Ars may be dedicated to none other than Toscani.18 Yet the early printing of Horace, notes Iurilli (2004: 24), does not seem to be connected with contemporary scholastic activity.
The first Renaissance commentary to appear in print is that of the Floren-tine professor Cristoforo Landino, printed by Antonio Miscomini in Florence in 1482.19 Landino — unlike most contemporaries — not only covers Horace’s entire opus but claims to rival the ancient scholia.20 This popular commentary had its critics. Minuziano, in the 1486 Zarothus reprint, acidly remarks, in words much quoted by modern scholars, that it is his duty to remedy the dam-age inflicted by a certain recent commentary.21 Landino’s commentary was never printed in Milan,22 but before the century was out it had featured in at least nine editions published elsewhere. In Venice (1490/1), Giovanni Francesco Su-perchio (Philomusus) combined Landino with the ancients, surrounding small sections of centre-page Horace text with copious Acro, Porphyrio, and Landino (in that order), punctuated by marginal ‘lemmata’ and pointers.
A year later, Antonio Mancinelli added a second modern commentary (on lyric) to the three printed so far. Mancinelli’s 1492 edition was repeatedly re-printed and fathered a long line of Venetian publications of Horace ‘cum
quat-tuor commentariis’,23 to which further contemporary commentaries, notes, met-rical explanations and vitae were prefixed and appended. The layout of Man-cinelli’s edition differs from Superchio’s in one subtle detail: Mancinelli places his own exegesis first, followed by Acro, Porphyrio and Landino. The place of Acro’s vita and expositio metrica is taken by Ode quid per Ant. Mancinellum and
Horatii Venusini Vita per Ant. Mancinellum edita.
17. Villa names several more Renaissance commentators: Giovanni Cuffarino, Francis-cus Buti of Pisa, Andrea Volsco dub. (1994: 134 seq.). It is clear from the same catalogue, that at least one medieval commentary, the 12th-century French Materia commentary
pub-lished by Friis-Jensen (1990), continued to be copied: it is found in six, presumably Italian, 15th-century manuscripts. See also Friis-Jensen
(1995).
18. Bianca (1996, esp. 276).
19. Landino had already produced a commen-tary on the Aeneid in 1478.
20. Cf. Cardini (1974: 249).
21. Minuziano to Calco (1486, Milan) : «… cum vererer, ne si id penitus detrectassem,
pluri-mum de majestate Oratiana nobis tolleretur, ob temerarium et veluti sacrilegum cuiusdam co-natum, qui recentissimas in Flaccum interpre-tationes edidit. de quibus verissime dici potest id quod de Rupilio rege noster inquit Oratius ‘pus atque venenum’ tam sensuum quam verbo-rum huius eminentissimi vatis — id quod nisi Porphyrionis antidotis repressum fuisset, brevi totus contabuisset Oratius.»
22. For subsequent critics, including Ugolino Verino, Badius, Celio Rodigino, see Bausi’s ‘Landino’ article in the Enciclopedia Oraziana
III (Rome 1998: 307—9).
23. The 1543 Venetian edition ‘cum quinque
commentariis’ contains three modern
The first non-Italian scholar to engage in commenting on Horace was the Flem-ish humanist Josse Bade van A(s)sche (Jodocus Badius Ascensius).24 Badius’ Silvae
Morales anthology, published in 1492 in Lyon, contained excerpts from Horace and
other authors, accompanied by his own commentary.25 At the turn of the century, Badius published the whole of the Satires and Epistles with Acro’s and his own com-mentaries (1499/1500, Lyon). In 1516 Badius’ lyric commentary appeared in Gio-vanni Britannico’s Venetian edition (printed by Alexander Paganini) together with Porphyrio, Mancinelli, and Britannico’s hexameter commentary. Badius’ own com-plete commented Horace, printed in Paris by Petit in 1519, replicates the Venetian ‘cum quattuor commentariis’ pattern. Following the Venetian example, here Badius replaces the gothic typeface of his Lyonese Horace with Roman type.
In 1533 the Parisian printer Robert Estienne (Stephanus) brought out another Venetian-style publication, Bernardino Martirano’s edition of the Ars Poetica. Acro and Porphyrio are flanked by commentaries by Martirano’s Calabrian compatriot Giovan Paolo Parisio (Aulus Janus Parrhasius), deceased 1522, and the Swiss poet scholar and musician Heinrich Loriti (Glareanus).26 After one reprint of this sepa-rate edition of the Ars Poetica (1536, Paris), Glareanus and Parrhasius joined a long list of commentators in the enlarged 1544 Venetian edition of opera omnia.27
The popularity of Horace editions with multiple ancient and modern commen-taries is obvious from the prolific number of reprints through the sixteenth century.28 It is clear from the appearance of the books, that they are designed for a scholastic market: the complete Horace volumes are of folio size (excepting the 1506 hexam-eters and 1533 Ars Poetica) and their margins are filled with copious commentary notes. Contemporary commentaries forming the bulk of these books are designed for teaching. They aim to give a much more systematic and detailed explanation of the text than is offered by ancient scholia; their level is fairly elementary. Mancinelli makes his purpose explicit in the dedicatory epistle to Pomponius Laetus:
hinc illud fateri audeo in Odis ipsis et in Epodis Carmi<n>eque Saeculari per me enucleatis (prius autem a tribus aliis Acrone Porphyrione Landino haud satis) nihil pene deesse ad rerum aut sensus cognitionem.
24. At this time, the German scholar Jakob Locher (Philomusus) returned to Strasbourg from his Italian travels and produced, in 1498, the first major German publication of Horace’s works equipped with his own commentary. Un-like Badius, Locher did not (to my knowledge) publish any ancient scholia.
25. 1492, Lyon (J. Trechsel) Silvae Morales cum
interpraetatione Ascensii: In XII libellos divisae...
A detailed catalogue of Badius’ editions is pro-vided by Renouard (1908).
26. Parisio’s commentary was published
sepa-rately by Martirano in 1531 (Naples, J. Sultz-bach); Glareanus’ edition of Horace, accom-panied by his own notes and Niccolo Perotti’s metrical treatise, was printed in 1533 (Freiburg, J. Faber Emmeus).
Similarly, Badius prefaces his commentary (1503) with an exhortation to students («Adhortatus sum vos, adolescentes optimi, sepe numero antehac...»). In the dedication of his Ars Poetica commentary, Glareanus disparages the youth of his day and sees his mission in educating: «ut iuventus utilissimis imbuta initiis frugem aliquando ferret uberem». It is revealing that, although ancient scholia were not considered sufficient on their own, they nonetheless continued to occupy a firm position in the teaching context, alongside modern exegesis.
The ancient commentaries gradually gain prominence over their modern neighbours. In the preface to his 1499/1500 Lyon edition of Horatian hexam-eters, Badius describes his own commentary as a humble scholastic auxiliary,29 but Acro — as a prize for the experienced reader:
non etenim aliud nobis propositum fuit quam verborum ordinem non sine facili explanatione contexere; ne tamen doctioribus maturae desint fruges, Acronis viri argutissimi commentarium praeposuimus.
In his 1519 Paris edition, Badius puts Acro and Porphyrio first in the
titu-lus; in the text itself they appear ahead of both Badius and Mancinelli, altering
the order of Mancinelli’s own 1492 edition.30 The Venetian editions of Badius examined by me (1536, 1545, 1546) retain the traditional order, whereby Acro and Porphyrio are sandwiched between modern commentators, but from 1543 Venetian tituli replicate the Parisian ones, headed by Acro and Porphyrio.
The apex of ancient commentators’ prominence among the moderns is the Basel editions printed by Heinrich Petri (Henricpetri) in 1545 and 1555. A third commented edition was issued in 1580, the year following Henricpetri’s death, by his son Sebastian. Like the Paris and Venice publications, these folio volumes are produced for teaching,31 but Petri revises the presentation of both commen-tary and text. In the 1545 edition, a wide column of Horace is accompanied
29. The method and purpose of Badius’ 1500 commentary on the Ars Poetica — namely offer-ing his reader access to a variety of relevant mate-rial in digested form — is discussed by Weinberg (1955).
30. In Badius’ 1506 edition of the Epistles, his own commentary, marked ‘Ascen’ in the margin, likewise follows Acro.
31. The 1545 Basel edition recommends Hor-ace for the teaching of both morality and Latin-ity: «Qui igitur volent teneros puerorum animos ita formare, ut iis gaudeant, quibus oportet …, quique volent studiosorum ingenia pura elegan-tique eruditione et lingua excolere, hunc poetam pueris tradant assidue versandum.» The
by a narrow italic column of commentary,32 which spills into full page after the poem. Acro and Porphyrio are praised in the titulus («…Acronis et Porphyrionis optimorum, sine controuersia, autorum…»), and their scholia are placed before a selection of contemporary commentators, varying from poem to poem.33
The two-volume 1555 Petri Horace, edited by Georg Goldschmidt (Fab-ricius), is particularly remarkable. In the first volume, Acro and Porphyrio alone accompany Horace’s text;34 contemporary commentaries are relegated to the second volume, with the exception of the Freiburg professor Johan Hartung, who precedes Horace in volume I. Like others before him, Fabricius attempts to improve the text of scholia with the help of manuscripts. He approaches scholia on a par with ancient authors:
cum autem interpretum Horatianorum libri corruptiores fuerint quam ullius adhuc
Latini scriptoris monumenta fuisse compererim, multis saepe locis, et in Italia et in
Germania, codices manuscriptos inquisivi.
An annotated codex sent by George, Prince of Anhalt-Dessau, enabled Fabricius to produce a much improved Acro.35 Less fortunate with Porphyrio manuscripts,36 Fabricius notes which elements appear to be lacking from his commentary:
desideratur enim narratio Porphyrionis de vita Horatii, cuius ipse mentionem ad Sermones facit libri primi, Satura sexta: desiderantur graeca epigrammata, quae ab eodem commentatore aliquoties adducuntur, et plurima fortasse alia.
Here Fabricius calls to witness Porphyrio’s commentary itself (ad Sat. 1.6.41). We shall presently see him exploit grammatical texts as evidence for the identity of the scholiasts.
The third Basel Horace, produced by Petri’s son in 1580, was edited by Nicolaus Hoeniger.37 This single-volume edition endeavours to represent a
32. Italic fonts were used for the commentaries by Estienne is his 1533 edition of the Ars
Po-etica.
33. Additional modern material agglomerated at the front and back of ‘cum quattuor
commen-tariis’ editions is here incorporated into the body
of the commentary after the relevant poem. 34. Acro and Porphyrio take pride of place even in the index (1555, Basel): «...in Acronis et Po<r>phyrionis tum aliorum authorum com-mentaria...»
35. Fabricius (1555, Basel): «...accesserunt ad Odarum commentationes non pauca, ad Artem poeticam multa, ad Sermones plurima … sed hoc minime vanum aut superbum est, me huius libri integritatem, copiamque secutum, multo
quasi habitiorem, et nitidiorem in palaestram literariam producere Acronem Helenium.» 36. Fabricius (1555, Basel): «in Porphirione ex paucis membranis antiquis, emendavi tantum aliqua, addidi pauca, dissipata, ut spero, colligi omnia. In Epistolis nihil a codice antiquo auxilij fuit, id quod expetebam maxime, propter dispu-tationes et διαλογισμως, verbis subobscuros…» 37. The Short-title catalogue of books printed
in the German-speaking countries… I (London
greater number of commentators than the two previous Petri publications, the ancient scholiasts retaining pride of place. Eulogising Henricpetri in his preface, Hoeniger mentions still more ardent admirers of ancient scholia, who would have ancient annotations alone as a sufficient tool for interpreting Horace.38
One such champion of ancient scholia is a slightly earlier Basel editor of Hor-ace, Michael Bentinus. I have postponed the discussion of his 1527 edition, which stands out among its contemporaries. In contrast to the folio ‘text-book’ editions, this octavo volume contains the text of Horace and a single commentary of Acro placed at the back, much in the style of today. Unlike ‘cum quattuor commentariis’ editions, this presentation did not take on and, to my knowledge, was never re-printed. (Bentinus died of the plague in the autumn of 1527.) Fashion notwith-standing, Bentinus considered Acro’s commentary a useful and self-sufficient tool for the study of Horace. In his dedication to Konrad Heresbach (Herzbachius), tutor to the dukes of Cleves, Bentinus explains why he singled out Acro:
Porro interpres et si non vetustissimum, utpote Prisciani et Servii, quem semel aut iterum citat aetate posterior, certe omnium iudicio inter Horatianos interpretes facile primum sibi locum vindicat. Nam Porphyrionis bonam partem desideramus. C. Aemilium, Modestum, Gelenium et caeteros, de nomine tantum novimus, quo-rum si extarent commentarij, facile paterer recentiores, si ita videretur, obsolescere. Verum cum hic unus ab interitu vix servatus sit, indignus sane visus est, qui con-temptu et typographorum incuria totus periret.
There are two interesting points. Firstly, Bentinus is dissatisfied with what is available of Porphyrio.39 Secondly, he mentions two new names among the scholiasts: Aemilius and Gelenius. The source of his information is ‘Q. Horatii
Flacci vita ex vetusto quodam exemplari descripta’ placed before the Horace text
and ending with the words «...commentati sunt illum Porphyrion, Modestus, Gelenius, Acron, omnium optime C. Aemelius.» The same brief vita printed in the earliest editions by Regius (1481) and Zarothus (1485) ends with the more familiar list: «...commentati in illum sunt Porphyrion Modestus Helenus[,] et Acron omnibus melius.» Bentinus obtained his vita from a codex lent him by Johannes Sichardus.40 This codex Sichardi vita is cited by Schweikert (1865: 3,
38. Nicolaus Hoeniger to Huldrich Coccio (?) (1580, Basel): «… Henricus Petri … iamdudum complectens aliquot virorum doctorum in hunc poetam lucubrationes expressit, applausu com-modoque studiosiorum haud vulgari: diverso tamen quorumdam iudicio, nam Acronis et
Por-phyrionis commentarios, ut nonnulli caeteris om-nibus anteferebant, sic quoque ad mentem poetae nostri et ad sententias explicandas sufficere omnino contendebant.»
39. Fabricius (1555, Basel) recalls Bentinus’
dissatisfaction: «Priscos autem in hunc poetam commentarios eiusmodi iniuria et calamitas si non attigisset, ut ad Heresbachium aliquando
scripsit Bentinus, facile pateremur recentiores
quosdam interpretes obsolescere.»
note 9): «commentati sunt illum Porphyrion, Modestus, I. Gelenius, Acron
om-nium optime Acron.» Schweikert points out that ‘omom-nium optime C. Aemelius’
arose from a collation of Sichardus’ ‘omnium optime Acron’ and the standard ‘Acron omnibus melius’.41
The error perseveres in the subsequent Basel editions up to and including Hoeniger’s (1580). In Fabricius’ 1555 edition, ‘C. Aemelius’, together with Ju-lius Modestus and Terentius Scaurus, receives an acknowledgement in the
titu-lus to volume I: «admixtis interdum C. Æmilii. Julii Modesti et Terentii Scauri
annotatiunculis». In his preface, Fabricius lists the ancient scholiasts, stating, in true scholarly fashion, the source of his knowledge about each.42 In most cases, the evidence consists of a citation or a mention by the grammarians, but the name of Aemelius is known to him from a fragment used in the earlier Basel edition, that is by Bentinus.43 While stating clearly that the writings of ‘Aeme-lius’, Modestus and Scaurus are lost, Fabricius expresses the hope that some por-tion of their material might survive — within ‘Acro’. Over-optimistic though this suggestion may be, Fabricius’ open-minded observations about ‘Acro’ are valuable. He suggests Acro as a possible repository for older material, because it often combines several explanations of the same point.44
The correct version of the vita was re-discovered in manuscripts of St Peter’s Abbey at Blandijnberg (Mont-Blandin) near Gent by Cruquius, to whose editions of Horace we shall turn presently. In his 1565 Epodes edition, Cruquius refers to the
vita for the trio of ancient commentators («comentatoribus… quos tres invenio in
vita Horatij manuscripta, Porphyrionem, Helenium[,] Acronem, et Julium Mod-estum»); the vita itself appeared in his 1578 edition of Horace’s complete works.
Interesting as the ‘Aemelius’ corruption may be, even more significant is the attitude towards ancient commentary that is visible behind it: the very identity of the scholiast has become a subject of enquiry. These investigatins were no doubt facilitated by the publication of the late-antique grammarians.45 Fabricius refers to Charisius as witness for the existence of Modestus and to Priscian for Porphyrio.
fecit Io. Sichardus amicus noster cum primis hu-manus et eruditus, quod et brevis et tamen hoc praeter caeteros haberet, quod eius interpretes ordine recenseret, huc apponendam putavimus.» 41. Inexplicably Schweikert (1865) blames Fabricius and his 1555 edition for this error. 42. Fabricius (1555, Basel): «...Iulium Modes-tum, artis scriptorem fuisse disertissimum dicit Charisius. Scauri autem decimum in Artem Po-eticam librum, idem adducit. Helenium Acro-nem bis citat Porphyrio, PorphyrioAcro-nem Priscia-nus etc.»
43. Fabricius (1555, Basel): «Interpretes Hora-tiani ex vetustissimis fuerunt quinque, C. Ae-milius, Iulius Modestus, Terentius Scaurus,
Helenius Acron, Porphyrion. De Aemelio et Modesto accepimus e fragmento codicis vetusti, vitam Horatij continente, quod editioni suae praeposuerunt Basilenses.»
44. Fabricius (1555, Basel): «Aemilii, Modesti, Scauri scripta penitus interierunt: nisi aliquae (ut ego suspicor) annotatiunculae sint commen-tariis Helenianis admixtae. Nam in unum locum saepissime binae, interdum tres pluresve exposi-tiones leguntur, neque semper unius generis: similiter de una eademque historia diversae pro-feruntur sententiae…»
While ancient scholia enjoyed a privileged position in the Basel editions, other contemporary publishers put them to purely utilitarian use. Producing an octavo Horace in 1533, the Lyonese printers, Melchior and Gaspar Trech-sel, drew on Acro, Antonio Mancinelli, and Matteo Bonfini to provide a brief marginal note about each poem (‘interlineares ... notulas’). The Trechsel brothers named the three commentators on the title page, but other commented edi-tions produced in the same period — for example Lyon 1536 and 1557, Venice 1548, H. Estienne’s 154946 — do not name a single commentator. By contrast, the slender octavo volume produced in 1556 by the Cologne printer Gualterus Fabricius boasts a catalogue of commentators comparable to the Basel edition of 1545 (adding Pietro Vettori and Francesco Luigini, omitting Servius). The com-mentary following each poem and occasionally appearing in the narrow margin is, however, of necessity brief and selective. Commentators are only occasionally mentioned by name at the end of a note. This edition was reprinted through the sixties: twice in Cologne and twice in Leipzig. Unacknowledged annotations in sixteenth-century editions and the role played in them by ancient scholia remain subject to investigation. It is clear, however, that these editors had little concern for the identity of the commentators.
The age and identity of ancient commentators, affirmed by Fabricius, were re-evaluated by the Flemish scholar Jacob van Cruucke (Jacques de Crucque, Cruquius). The title of his first commented edition, Odes 4 (1565, Antwerp), draws attention to the false attribution of scholia: «… cum commentariis falso adhuc Porphyrioni et Acroni adscriptis.» Dissatisfied with the content and cor-rupt state of the scholia he found in Blandinian manuscripts, Cruquius refuses to attribute them to the great and famous ancient scholars.47 Instead, marginal material amalgamated from several manuscripts is published under the non-committal label ‘Commentator’.48 Odes 4 were followed by the Epodes in 1567,
46. 1536 Lyon (S. Gryphius) Q. Horatii Flacci
Venusini, poetae lyrici poemata omnia, doctissimis scholiis illustrata; 1548 Venice (F. Bidonus, M.
Pasinus) Quinti Horatii Flacci Venusini poetae
lyrici poemata omnia scholijs doctissimis illustrata;
1549 Paris Q. Horatii Flacci Poëmata, scoliis et
argumentis ab Henr. Stephano illustrata. Jam recèns recognitæ simul ac adnotatiunculis, quae brevis commentarij vice esse possint, illustratæ;
1557 Lyon (T. Paganus) Q. Horatii Flacci
Ve-nusini poetae lyrici poemata omnia, ad castigatissi-mi cujusque exemplaris fidem quam accuratissime restituta, scholiisque doctissimis illustrata.
47. Cruquius (1565, Antwerp): «…nam hinc evenit, ut nullo suo merito, primi illi commen-tatores, viri doctissimi, et male audierint saepe, et vapularint saepius illorum gratia, qui et
illit-terati simul et improbi cum praeclaras elucubra-tiones, tum labores certe maximos maximorum virorum tam perdite conspurcarint, et usibus eripuerint nostris.» Cf. the 1578 preface to the
Vita (Antwerp): «in editis olim per Henricum
the Satires in 1573, and the complete works in 1578. The ‘Commentator’ pre-cedes Cruquius’ own notes in all these editions.
The importance of ‘Commentator’ lies in its preserving material from the Blandinian manuscripts destroyed in the fire of 1566. This material consists of Horace variants49 and scholia, of which the former have predictably attracted far more scholarly attention. The evidence of the ‘Commentator’ was judged worthless by scholia editor Keller (1904: x-xiv), because Cruquius had compiled and edited marginal material.50 Nisbet and Hubbard (1970: li) follow Keller’s judgment, but Pasquali (1952: 381-2) re-asserts the value of the ‘Commenta-tor’.51 A specific example of ancient information preserved by Cruquius is cited by Borzsák.52
The margins of Henri Estienne’s (Stephanus’) 1575 pocket edition of Hor-ace (re-edited in 1588 and 1600) contain his brief explanations and variant read-ings. A collection of Diatribae, that is discussions of Horatian textual problems, is appended to the text.53 The second edition (1588: 151—68) also includes an assortment of Porphyrio emendations: «In veri Porphyrionis commentarios emendationes, necnon quaedam ad eosdem accessiones: ex quodam veteri libro sumptae». Estienne begins his discussion of Porphyrio with an unexpected state-ment: «ex doctis aliquot viris, a quibus docti olim in Horatium commentarii scripti fuerunt, superest tantum Porphyrio». Acro is clearly considered beneath
et Iulium Modestum — hoc Commentatoris vocabulum his annotationibus proprium feci, propterea quod annotationes essent asscriptae margini in quatuor codicibus Blandiniis sine alicuius auctoris nomine, qua gratia non parva suspicione moveor, ut iudicem has ex varijs commentatorum dictis et sententiis esse sartas, quae nisi habito meliori exemplari distingui non poterunt aut secerni.»
49. The accuracy of Cruquius’ Blandinian variants is doubted, because Cruquius’ report of non-Blandinian Leidensis 127, also known as Codex Divaei or Currionis, was found unsat-isfactory by 19th-century scholars. A list of
pas-sages demonstrating Cruquius’ incompetence was produced by Matthias in the final chapter of his dissertation (Quaestionum
Blandinianar-um capita tria, Halle 1882), known to me only
through Endt’s report (1906: 3). The debate is summarised by Lenchantin (1937: 147—8). Cruquius’ report was re-evaluated by Pasquali (1952: 381—5).
50. Comparing the ‘Commentator’ to scholia recently published by Holder (1894) and Kel-ler (1902—1904), KelKel-ler’s pupil Endt (1906,
Vorwort) suggests that Cruquius used Greek and Roman authors as well as Renaissance Horace commentators to improve his ‘Com-mentator’.
51. Modern prejudice associated with Cruqui-us’ ‘Commentator’ is pinned down precisely by Massaro (1995: 229, note 7): the ‘Commenta-tor’ is all too readily dismissed as an amalga-mation, while vestiges of ‘authorial’ presence continue to linger around Pseudo-Acro — at least, I may add, as long as Keller’s ‘Pseudo-Acro’ remains the standard edition.
52. Borzsák (1998: 23) points out that Cruquius not only cites the «fugio campum lusumque trigonem» reading at Sat. 1.6.126 of the ‘Blandinus Vetustissimus’, but also pre-serves a scholion about the same game at Sat. 2.6: «solebant autem Romani in Campo Mar-tio ludere pila trigonali.» The Pseudo-Acronian note on the same lemma is similar, but lacks the crucial description of the ball.
mention, while Porphyrio is praised to the skies: «quanto magis Porphyrionis sive commentarios sive scholia evolvo, tanto pluris illum faciam». Estienne ad-duces a number of textual arguments to prove the great age and value of the commentary: explanations of pagan rites, old linguistic usage, a copious display of Greek. Porphyrio is treated not as material to be published alongside Horace in order to elucidate the poet’s text, but as a critic’s palaestra, in other words, a text in its own right.54
Some of the editions described above continue to appear in the following century: Cruquius’ edition of opera omnia is reprinted in 1611, Martirano’s Ars
Poetica — in 1621. In 1632 the Cologne Jesuit Philippe Bebius prepares, for
use in Jesuit schools, a ‘purged’ edition of Horace’s lyric, which is essentially grounded in the sixteenth-century tradition. Horace was added to the Jesuit curriculum some seventy years earlier;55 in 1569 the Roman printer Vittorio Eliano produced an Horace purged for Jesuit schools. This became a model for northern, mostly German, ‘Horatius Romae expurgatus’ publications, still printed in the eighteenth century.56 Bebius’ Horace stands out among these, being accompanied by several commentaries: Ceruti’s Paraphrase, Acro, Por-phyrio, Chabot, Lambin and van der Beke (Torrentius). The commentaries are placed after the text, not around it, but the use of multiple commentators recalls sixteenth-century Venetian-style editions.
The format of the next edition containing ancient scholia is radically differ-ent. As advertised in its title, the 1653 octavo Horace produced by the Leiden printer Franciscus Hackius contains a selection of notes by ancient and mod-ern scholars («...cum commentariis selectissimis variorum...») in addition to the very popular commentary of Bond, reproduced in full («...et scholiis integris J. Bond»). The commentary of John Bond — physician and once Master of the Free School, Taunton — was first printed in London in 1606, saw some twenty reprints in England and on the continent prior to the Leiden edition, and con-tinued to appear in the eighteenth century. Both in Bond’s original edition and in its reprints, the annotations are presented in the form of footnotes. In his preface, Bond boasts of his numeric system connecting each note to the text, just as we do today: «ita tamen ut singulas annotationes ad figuras arithmeti-cas referas in contextu...» Hackius uses line numbers in preference to footnote numbers, but otherwise retains Bond’s format and incorporates notes by other
54. It is not clear to me if «veri Porphyri-onis» merely expresses Estienne’s high re-gard for the commentator, or responds to (Cruquius’?) doubts about attribution of scholia.
55. Comparing Jesuit syllabuses from 1551 and 1565, Gendler notes the addition of Ter-ence, Horace, Ovid, and other authors in the
1565 syllabus (1989: 241). The syllabuses are published by Lukács (1965—1981). 56. The original 1569 Roman (V. Helianus) edition is accompanied by Aldo Manuzio’s notes: Quintus Horatius Flaccus ab omni
scholars into the footnotes, acknowledging each by name. Hackius’ Horace was followed by three reprints over the next twenty years. Bond’s format set the trend for the eighteenth century, starting with William Baxter’s Horace printed in London in 1701.
The title of Baxter’s edition «...una cum scholiis perpetuis, tam veteribus quam novis; præcipue vero antiquorum grammaticorum, Helenij Acronis, Pomponi-ique Porphyrionis...» and the educational purpose suggested in his preface («pub-licoque eruditorum usui proponere») raise expectations of a detailed commentary. In fact, the comments provided in the Bond-style footnotes of this octavo volume are necessarily select and brief. Baxter cites the ancient scholia collectively as ‘Vet. Schol.’, offering no explanation for this label. Baxter’s high regard for ancient scholia is clear from his Instituti operis ratio, beginning with their praise:
in hoc commentario veterum scholiorum reliquiae, quas tanquam tabulas e navi-fragio summa cum diligentia ex imperitis rudioris aevi compilatoribus collegimus, merito suo facem praeferunt.
Baxter backs modern judgment with ancient authority: for instance, «Muretus, Lambinus, Torrentius cum Vet. Schol.». Baxter is also interested in the identity of the ancient commentators, for he notes that Porphyrio subsumed earlier commentaries including that of Acro — presumably deducing this from the mention of Acro in Porphyrio’s text. Baxter goes on to explain that ancient commentaries were re-edited by later ‘magistri’ and ‘librarii’, including
‘Pseudo-Acro’, ‘Pseudo-Porphyrio’, and the particularly valuable ‘interpres Cruquianus’,
«caeteris multis in rebus et plenior et purgatior».57 Apparently, Baxter does not realise that the Cruquian ‘Commentator’ is the editor’s creation, but he coin-cides with Cruquius in the opinion that Acro’s and Porphyrio’s commentaries are lost. Indeed Baxter’s reluctance to attribute ancient scholia may arise from the same principles as Cruquius’ use of ‘Commentator’.
Half a century later Baxter’s Horace was revived by the German school-master, Johann Matthias Gesner. His 1752 Leipzig edition, printed by Caspar Fritsch, was followed by several reprints. In his preface, Gesner affirms the need for a succinct commentary explaining proper names, mythical, histori-cal, geographihistori-cal, and genealogical allusions.58 Like Baxter, Gesner sees ancient
57. Baxter (1703, London): «Pomponius Porphyrio, homo doctus atque diligens, incer-tum quo aevo, stante certe deorum cultu, He-lenii Acronis, vetusti Grammatici, forsan etiam aliorum fusiora commentaria in breve compen-dium redegerat. magistri librarii sequentis aevi hunc itidem compilavere; quorum in numero cum Pseudo-Acrone et Pseudo-Porphyrione, Cruquianus interpres nominandus venit, etsi hic quidem sit caeteris multis in rebus et plenior
et purgatior.»
scholia as valuable, but too fragmentary to serve this purpose on their own.59 The second reprint (1788) was edited by Johann Carl Zeune, who enlarged the apparatus, provided an index of proper names, and also added annotations, es-pecially on the hexameter works. The purpose of the edition remains scholastic. Ancient scholia retain their modest place: only contemporary works of scholar-ship are mentioned in the preface.60 Zeune does not seem to use manuscripts, for his Horace variants are drawn from printed editions.61 The Gesner-Zeune augmented edition was also published in Glasgow and London from 1796 onwards. Among the six British editions, at least the one printed in London in 1822 clearly advertises its school-room destination, in usum scholae
Carthu-sianae. Re-making the in usum Delphini series, the London printer Abraham
John Valpy used the Gesner-Zeune edition, together with the original 1669
in usum Serenissimi Delphini edition by Despez, as the basis for his 1825
four-volume commented Horace.62 No ancient scholia are visible in the new Del-phin apparatus.
In 1788, the year Zeune’s Horace appeared in print, the Cambridge clas-sicist Henry Homer and the physician Charles Combe embarked on a larger
edi-sepultas, alludentem; quibus neque vacet neque alias integrum sit ad alios libros transire, ma-gnos commentarios volvere, qui praesertim de-stituant saepe, ubi minime opus erat, studiosos: hac ergo conditione cum et maior et nobilior pars sit lectorum Horatii: optabile sane erat
ta-lium exemplarium exstare copiam, quae breves, ne onerent et velut obruant ipsum poetam, sed quan-tum praestari potest, bonas interpretationes eorum locorum habeant.»
59. Gesner (1752, Leipzig): «horum si hodie sinceri exstarent commentarii… mire inde adiuvaretur jucundissimi poetae intelligentia. sed dolendum est, ita a posterioribus priorum labores esse corruptos, truncatos, interpolatos, uti nunc opus sit homine subacti multo usu et longa consuetudine judicii, qui veteris purpurae lacinias, interdum vix filamenta, eruere ex istis centonibus et inde lucem suam dare Horatio possit.»
60. Zeune (1788, Leipzig): «quoniam argu-mentorum enarratio ad rei intelligentiam non parum facere existimatur; omnia, qua potui, diligentia, inprimis Semonibus Epistolisque illa praeposui... omnino autem hic, inprimis in personarum ratione, quantum fieri potuit, Iani doctissimi, qui Horatii Carmina elegantissime edidit, et Wielandii viri ingenui et doctrina clarissimi, qui Sermones et Epistolas, additis
observationibus lectu dignissimis, Germanice reddidit, opera me usum esse gratus profiteor. si quid in hac editione a me praestitum fuerit, quod iuventuti scholasticae ad facilius et rectius Horatium intelligendum prosit, vehementer la-etabor.» Zeune presumably refers to the 1778— 1782 commented edition of the Odes by Chris-tian David Jani and the German translation of the hexameters by Christoph Martin Wieland. 61. Zeune (1788, Leipzig): «Textum nonnullis in locis, sed caute et parce, ad fidem librorum mutavi…» Sources of variant readings named by Zeune are Bentley, the 1559 Venetian edi-tion, Glareanus (1536), Chabotius (1615), Lambinus (1596), and Crusius’ annotations (in his copy of Glareanus’ edition).
tion, which would include a comprehensive variety of deserving commentaries.63 Homer died in 1791, before the first volume was completed, and the monumen-tal two-volume Horace was published as Combe’s edition (1792—1793, Lon-don). Making use of a dozen earlier editions and commentaries (listed under the heading Nomina auctorum et operum, ex quibus notas desumsi), Combe chose as his basis the 1772 reprint of Gesner’s Baxter Horace.64 While Combe himself made no reference to ancient scholia, he inherited ‘Schol. Vet.’, together with other an-notations, from Gesner’s edition.
The main shifts in the fortune of scholia publication from the Renaissance to the nineteenth century can be summarised as follows. Early Renaissance scholars reproduce scholia indiscriminately from available manuscripts. From the 1490s, ancient scholia share the page with contemporary exegeses. Scholia are prominent in early-sixteenth-century north-European publications by Badius, but the trend for later publication of scholia is set by annotated pocket-editions produced from the 1530s. From this time on, most editors cite only snippets of ancient scholia to illustrate a point or to support a judgement. The exceptional Basel editions produced in the middle of the sixteenth century are the last comprehensive publi-cations of scholia until the nineteenth century. These editions also draw attention to the identity of the scholiasts and the question of authorship, which continues to occupy the minds of later scholars.
After over two centuries of sporadic and partial publication, ancient scho-lia regain their prominence in the nineteenth century. Two Germanic editions of the Ars Poetica appear in 1824. A scholastic edition produced by Franz von Paula Hocheder — then a Würzburg schoolmaster, later professor in Munich — prefaces Horace’s text with ‘Acron’ and Porphyrio summaries of Horace’s
praecepta (1824: xvii). Hocheder accompanies Horace with his own notes in
German, but also reproduces Porphyrio’s commentary from a ‘tenth-century’ Munich manuscript (presumably Clm 181 s. ix m.) in the Appendix (Dritte Anhang). In the Vorrede (vii), Hocheder explains that reading Porphyrio’s text as it stands will help to sharpen his students’ critical acumen.65 Similarly,
Emer-63. Combe (1792—1793, London) Proemi-um: «Editiones Flacci cum notis et animadver-sionibus, quae in hoc seculo plurimae in publicum prodierunt, quamvis et eruditione et ornamentis summis nonnullae abundant, omnes tamen
vari-orum observationibus carent. In hac nova editione,
si cura adhibeatur ut eae notae seligantur, ex
var-iis autoribus, quae apud doctos judices utilissimae habentur, sperandum est, me non modo
studi-osorum commodis haud male consuluisse, sed etiam in elegantiorum hominum bibliothecas aliquid ornamenti contulisse.»
64. Combe (1792—1793, London): «Quoniam Baxteri Flaccus, cum notis Gesneri editus, tum
apud exteros tum nostrates, propter egregiam accurationem et notas, non mediocrem laudem consecutus est, hujusce editionis contextum, nisi in locis quibusdam, ab incuria typographorum, manifeste pravis, nihil prorsus mutare ausus, pro exemplari adhibui.»
ich Hohler’s Viennese edition provides an apparatus of German footnotes and Porphyrio’s commentary, printed separately at the back (1824: 76—84). In his introduction, Hohler refers to Porphyrio on points of interpretation and, in passing, calls him a precious commentator.66
Braunhard’s 1831—1838 Leipzig edition of Horace’s opera omnia contains both Porphyrio and ‘Acro’, appearing by instalments before each Horatian work. Unlike Baxter, Braunhard is optimistic about the survival of ancient scholia:
qui Acroni et Porphyrioni abiudicant omnia et semper nescio quem Pseudoacr-onem et PseudoporphyriPseudoacr-onem in ore habent, nae illi parum se praestant criticos. nam neque argumentis firmant hanc suspicionem, neque satis adtente legisse eos oportet scholiastas. hoc enim si fecissent, vidissent sane, plurimas eorum adnota-tiones antiquissimam aetatem et stantem adhuc deorum cultum prodere.
Braunhard does not see scholia as a text which needs to be edited: if we are to trust the preface, he prints the scholia from a single manuscript.67
In the second half of the nineteenth century, the scholia appear once more, for the first time since the fifteenth century, as separate texts in their own right. Pauly’s 1858 edition claims to be the first to pick up the work of Fabricius (1555): Scholia
Horatiana quae feruntur Acronis et Porphyrionis post G. Fabricium nunc primum emendatiora edidit F. Pauly. Pauly uses a single manuscript for Porphyrio (Wolf.
Aug. 85) and, for Acro, one manuscript (Wolf. Gud. 81.38) supplemented by early editions (‘Patavia’ 1481, Milan 1486, Fabricius, Cruquius 1579). Pauly’s work is described by Schmidt as the last pre-modern edition (1997: 261). Germanic schol-arship of Pauly and his contemporaries is evaluated by Noske (1969: 3—12).
While these and later nineteenth-century publications do not satisfy the modern concept of a critical edition, they serve the same purpose: their aim is to publish the text of scholia, rather than use it to illustrate Horace.
Chronological index of printed editions of Porphyrio and ‘Acro’
* following a date indicates that I have seen a copy of this edition; with few excep-tions, the majority of the editions were consulted at the British Library.† = sic, marking printing errors. I standardise capitalisation, but retain spelling. Names of printers (and sponsors, in the case of incunabula) are indicated in brackets. Dedicatees are indicated for incunabula editions only.
Modern catalogue references are similarly limited to the Gesamtkatalog der
Wieg-endrucke, [GdW].
66. Hohler (1824, Vienna, 1): «…nach Por-phyrius, von welchem ein schaetzbarer Com-mentar ueber dieses Gedicht aus dem Alter-thume uebrig ist, soll hier der erstgenante L. Calpurnius Piso gemeint seyn…»
[GdW 13456]
1474* (Horace +) Acro (including vita, expositio metrica) 4ºA. Zarothus, Milan
Tituli
1. Acronis commentatoris egregii in Quinti Horatii Flacci Venusini opera expositio in-cipit
2. [expl.] Acronis viri quam doctissimi commentaria diligenter emendata in Q. Horatii Flacci opera per Antonium Zarothum Parmensem Mediolani impressa mccclxxiv Idibus Sextilibus
[GdW 13471]
1474/5* Horace lyric and Ars Poetica + Acro, Porphyrio
fol.F. A. Marchisius & A. Sabinus (sponsored by I. L. Tuscanus), Rome (Wen-delinus de Wila / B. Guldinbeck)
Tituli 1. Vita Horatii secundum Acronem 2. Vita Horatii secundum Pophyrionem
3. Quinti Horatii Flacci Odarum ad Moecenatem liber primus 4. [expl.] Explanatio Porphirionis in arte poetica feliciter explicit
Dedications
1. Ioannes Aloisius Tuscanus aduocatus consistorialis Francisco Helio Parthenopeio sa-lutem
2. Franciscus Marchisius Aelius Perthenopeus† domino Ioanni Aloisio Tuscano amico lepidissimo poete dulcissimo Oratorique periter† et iurisconsulto clarissimo s.d.
[GdW 13457]
1481?* Porphyrio; Horace+ Acro (incl. vita, exp. metr.)
fol.R. Regius (Porphyrio) & L. de Strazzarolis (H. + Acro) (sponsored by Mar-co Roma); Venice or Treviso (Mich. Manzolus)
Tituli 1. Porphyrionis in Qu. Horatii Flacci operibus comentum† incipit
2. Acronis commentatoris egregii in Quinti Horatii Flacci Venusini operae expositio incipit
3. Τελος Quinti Ho<r>atii Flacci omnium operum cum Acronis Disertissimi commen-tatoris expositione
Dedications
1. Raphael Regius Aloisio Mauroceno patricio Veneto salutem plurimam dicit
2. ad reverendissimum in Christo patrem et d. dominum Angelum Phaseolum Dei et apostolicae saedis gratia episcopum Feltrensem Ludovicus de Strazarolis Tarvisanus
[GdW 13461; 13463]
1485* Porphyrio; Horace + Acro (incl. vita, exp. metrica)
fol.A. M. Conagus, Milan (A. Zarothus),1486* A.Minutianus (A. Zarothus); Tituli 1. Porphyrionis in Qu. Horatii Flacci operibus comentum† incipit
2. Acronis commentatoris egregii in Quinti Horatii Flacci Venusini operae expositio incipit
Medi-olani impressa per Antonium Zarotum parmensem anno domini Mcccclxxxv impensis Mariae Conagi
Preface 1485 (after Porphyrio) Augustinus Maria Conagus ad lectorem
Dedication 1486 Alexander Minutianus Appulus† magnifico viro Bartholomaeo Chal-co Ducalium secretorum magistro MeChal-coenati suo s.
[GdW 13464]
1490/1* Horace + Acro, Porphyrio, Landinus fol.Philomusus, Venice (G. Arrivabene) Tituli 1. Liber Primus. Mecœnas atavis...
2. [expl.] Horatii Flacci lyrici opera a Georgio Arrivabene Mantuano diligenter Venetiis impressa hic clauduntur. anno salutis Mccccxc pridie nonas Febrarii. laus Deo.
Dedication Io. Franciscus Philomusus Pisaurensis inclyto principi Ioanni Sfortiae s.d.
[GdW 13465; 13466; 13467; 13469; 13470]
1492/3* H. + Mancinellus (lyric), Acro, Porphyrio, Landinus
fol.A. Mancinellus, Venice (P. Pincio) 1494* (Boneto Locatello), 1495/6 (P. Pincio, B. Fontana), 1498* (J. Aluysius), 1498? (P. Pincio), 1505, 1509, 1514 (A. de Zannis de Portesio); Milan 1508* (Pachel), 1512* (L. de Be-bulco)
Tituli
1. Horatius cum commentariis Ant. Mancinelli, Acronis, Porphyrionis, Christophori Landini
2. [expl.] Horatii Flacci poetae opera a Philippo Pincio Mantuano diligenter Venetiis impressa Anno salutis MCCCCXCII Pridie Kalendas Martii. Berardino† Refina littear-rum† doctorumque amantissimo pecuniam impendente
Dedication Antonius Mancinellus Veliternus Pomponio Laeto Romani eloquii principi summaeque prudentae viro
[GdW 13474]
1499/1500* Horace Satires, Epistles + Acro + Badius
4º ed. J. Badius, Lyon (N. Wolff); Paris 1500 (F. Regnault); (Acro on Epistles only) Paris 1505/1506* (J. Philippus, expensis J. Granion)
Tituli 1. Sermonum Horatij familiare commentum cum Acronis subtilissima inter-pretatione
2. Epistolarum Horatij familiare commentum cum Acronis subtilissima explanatione
Dedications
1. (Satires) Iodocus Badius Ascensius Laurentio Burello regio confessori prudentissimo Carmoelitarum candidissimo theologorum divinissimo et praesidiorum suorum longe dulcissimo cum omni veneratione S. D.
2. (Epistles) Iodocus Badius Ascensius Religiosis admodum fratribus domus sancti Hier-onymi Gandavi ad scaldem divique Batistae aedes: cultis sane cum litteris tum virtutibus viris: sibique longe observandis S. D.
fol.ed. J. Britannicus , Venice (A. Pagano); 1520 (de Fontaneto), 1527 (de Monteferrato), 1536* (Tacuini), 1540 (Roffinellus)
Titulus Odarum libri quattuor; Epodon, Carmen Saeculare Porphyrione, Antonio Mancinello, Ascensio interpretibus. eiusdem Ars Poetica, Sermonum libri duo, Episto-larum totidem Joanne Britannico Brixiano interpretibus. Accedit ad novum interpretem index copiosissimus dictionum fabularum et historiarum omnium quae hisce commen-tariis insunt.
Titulus 1527 Qvinti Horatii Flacci poemata omnia: commentatibus Antonio Man-cinello: Acrone: Porphyrione: Joanne Britanico: nec non et Jodoco Badio Ascensio; viris eruditissimis. Centimetrum Marii Seruii. Annotationes Aldi Manutii romani. Ratio mensuum: quibus Odae tenentur: eodem Aldo auctore. Nicolai Peroti Libellus de met-ris odarum. Annotationes Matthaei Bonfinis Asculani: suis locis insertate: et ad finem ex integro restitutae.
1519* H. + Acro, Porph., Mancin. (lyric), Badius (hex.) +et. al. fol.J. Badius, Paris (Petit); 1528, 1529 (Badius), 1543* (Petit), 1579
Titulus Opera Q. Horatii Flacci poetæ amœnissimi cum quatuor commentariis Acronis, Porphyrionis, Anto. Mancinelli, Jodoci Badii Ascensii accurate repositis, cumque adno-tationibus Matthaei Bonfinis et Aldi Manutii Romani a philologo recognitis: suisque locis insertis et ad finem ex integro restitutis. Praemisso amplissimo in vniuersum opus indice.
Titulus 1543 Q. Horatii Flacci opera cum quatuor commentariis, Acronis, Porphyrionis,
Antonii Mancinelli, Iodoci Badii, anno M.D.XLIII. repositis. Cumque adnotationibus
Matthaei Bonfinis et Aldi Manutii a philologo recognitis, suisque locis insertis, et ad fidem ex integro restitutis. Praemissoque et aucto indice. Adiectae in calce libri eundem in authorem Henrici Glareani Heluetii, Poetæ Laureati, viri de omni genere scientiarum benemeriti, annotationes, quibusquidem rite perspectis, multa in commentariis mutila ac corrupta reponere poterit diligens lector.
1527* Horace; Acro
8ºM. Bentinus, Basel (Valentinus Curio)
Titulus Q. Horatii Flacci Venusini poetae amoenissimi, exactissimique atque inter lyri-cos Latinos principis opera cum commentarijs Acronis grammatici haud quaquam uul-garis, nuper quam accuratissime castigati aeditique ac amplissimo indice illustrati
1533*Horace + Acro + Mancinellus + Bonfinis 8ºLyon (M. et G. Trechsel fratr.)
Titulus Q. Horatii Flacci poetae lyrici amoenissimi posterior æditio, cæteris ut emen-datior ita locupletior, argumentis, scholijs, et metrica carminum ratione. Nicolai Perotti libellus de metris Horatianarum Odarum. Aldi Manutii Romani in eundem adnota-tiones non infrugiferae. Interlineares etiam notulas ex Acrone, Mancinello, et Matthæo Bonfinis plurimas iamprimum adiecimus, et sicubi occurrerit varia lectio, diligenter annotavimus.
1533* Horace Ars Poetica + Parrhasius, Acro, Porphyrio, Glareanus
Titulus Q. Horatii Flacci Ars Poetica, cum trium doctissimorum commentariis A. Jani Parrhasii, Acronis, Porphyrionis. adjectæ sunt ad calcem doctissimæ Glareani annota-tiones.
1544* Horace + Acro, Porphyrio, et al.
fol.Venice (Scottus), 1545*, 1546* (Roffinellus), 1549 (haer. Ravani), 1549 (Scotus), 1553 (Nicolinis; Scotus), 1559 (Bonelli), 1562, 1567, 1576, 1584 (Gryphius), 1590
Titulus Q. Horatii Flacci Poetæ Venusini Omnia poemata, cvm ratione carminum, et argumentis ubique insertis, interpretibus Acrone, Porphirione, Iano Parrhasito† Anto-nio Mancinello, necnon Iodoco Badio Ascensio viris eruditissimis, scoliisque D. Erasmi Roterodami, Angeli Politiani, M. Antonii Sabellici, Lvdovici Caelii Rodigini, Baptistae Pii, Petri Criniti, Aldi Manutii, Matthaei Bonfinis, et Iacobi Bononiensis nuper adiunc-tis. His nos praeterea annotationes doctissimorum Antonii Thylesii Consentini, Fran-cisci Robortelli Utinensis, atque Henrici Glareani apprime utiles addidimus. Nicolai Peroti Sipontini Libellvs de metris Odarum, auctoris vita ex Petro Crinito Florentino, quae omnia longe politius, ac diligentius, quam hactenus, excusa in luce prodeunt.
1545* Horace + Porphyrio, Acro, et al. fol.Basel (H. Petri)
Titulus Q. Horatii Flacci Venvsini opera, qvibvs inter poetas et Latinos et Graecos vix quicque praestantius, cum ad linguam excolendam, tum ad actiones affectusque moderandos, inuenitur. Vt igitur omnes studiosi legere, iunioribusque interpretari sine remora possint, omnium commentaria quae uisa sunt digna ut legantur, per aliquot eruditos grammaticos auxilio ueterum exemplarium, iam denuo castigata addidimus, nempe Acronis & Porphyrionis optimorum, sine controuersia, autorum. Item an-notationes ivdicio et eruditione magnorum, æternaque memoria dignorum virorum: Henrici Glareani Helvetii poetae laureati, Erasmi Roterodami, Matthaei Bonfinis, Aldi Manutij a Philologo recognitas, Ludovici Cœlij, Angeli Politiani, M. Antonij Coccij Sabellici, Ioannis Baptistae Pij Bononiensis, Iacobi à Cruce Bononiensis, Seruij Gram-matici, Petri Criniti.
1555*Horace + Porphyrio, Acro, et al. fol.G. Fabricius, Basel (H. Petri)
Tituli [vol. I] Opera Q. Horatii Flacci Venusini, Grammaticorum antiquis Helenii Acronis et Porphirionis commentariis illustrata, admixtis interdum C. Æmilii. J. Mod-esti et Terentii Scauri annotatiunculis: edita auctius et emendatius quam umquam antea per Georgium Fabricium Cheminicensem. Ex Diomedis etiam observationibus indicata in Odis Carminum genera sunt et menda in iisdem sublata. … Huc quoque accedunt Ioan. Hartungi in omnia Horatii opera breves observationes, quibus docet potissimum ubi hic noster Graecos imitavit. Interpretes reliqui poetae huius in altero huius volu-minis tomo tibi exhibentur. Cum gratia et privilegio imperiali Basileae.
Ma-nutii, Ludovici Coelii, Angeli Politiani, M. Anton. Coccii Sabellici, Ioan. Baptistae Pii Bonon., Iacobi a Cruce Bononiensis, Petri Criniti, Henrici Loriti Glareani annotationes in Horatii opera.
1556* Horace + Acro, Porph. et al.
8ºCologne (Gualt. Fabricius), 1562 (G. Fabricius), 1564* (P. Horst); Leipzig 1563, 1568 (E. Vœgelinus)
Titulus Opera Q. Horatii Flacci cum metrica carminum ratione et argumentis ubique illustrata, tum etiam doctissimorum virorum Acronis, Porphyrionis, D. Erasmi Rotero-dami, Angeli Politiani, M. Antonij Sabellici, Ludovici Coelij Rhod., Babtistae Pij., Petri Criniti, Aldi Manutij, Matthaei Bonfinis, Iacobi Bononiensis, Henrici Glareani, Peteri Victorij et Francisci Luisini annotationibus in illius opemata adjectis.
1565* Odes 4 + ‘Commentator’ (scholia), Cruquius 8ºJ. Cruquius, Brugge (H. Golzius)
Titulus Q. Horatii Flacci carminum liber quartus, ex antiquissimis manuscriptis codi-cibus cum commentarijs falso adhuc Porphyrioni et Acroni adscriptis, opera Iacobi Cruquii Messinii apud Brugenses litterarum Professoris publici editus. eiusdem in eun-dem Adnotationes; Brugis Fland. Ex officina Huberti Goltzij MDLXV
1567* Epodes + ‘Commentator’ (scholia), Cruquius 8ºJ. Cruquius, Antwerp (Plantin)
Titulus Q. Horatii Flacci Epodon liber ex antiquissimis septem codicibus manuscriptis, cum commentarijs antiquis emendatus & editus opera Iacobi Cruquii Messinij, apud Brugensis politioris litteraturæ professoris publici. Eiusdem in eundem adnotationes.
1573* Satires + ‘Commentator’ (scholia), Cruquius 8ºJ. Cruquius, Antwerp (Plantin)
Titulus Q. Horatii Flacci Satyrarum, seu potius Eclogarum, libri II. [E]x antiquissimis vndecim codicibus manuscriptis, cum antiquis commentarijs, post omneis qui hactenus editi sunt, infinitis locis purgati, & clariùs explicati opera Iacobi Cruquii Messinii, apud Brugenseis politioris litteraturae professoris publici. Eiusdem in eosdem commentarij.
1578*/9* Horace + ‘Commentator’, Cruquius (1597 + Dousa) 4ºJ. Cruquius, Antwerp (Plantin); 1597*, 1611
Titulus Q. Horatius Flaccus, ex antiquissimis undecim lib. M.S. et schedis aliquot emendatus et plurimis in locis cum commentaris antiquis expurgatus et editus opera J. Cruquii Messenii apud Bruganos politioris litteraturae professoris publici. Eiusdem in eundem enarrationes, observationes, et variae lectiones, cum aliis quibusdam et indice locupletissimo.
1580* Horace + Acro, Porphyrio et al. fol.N. Hoeniger, Basel (H. Petri)
variisque ac vetustissimis exemplaribus collate et menda in iisdem sublata: quorum auth. nomina et ordinem sequens pagina demonstrabit. iam pridem in studiosae iuventutis gratiam et utilitatem post herculeos labores edita : cum gemino indice rerum, verborum ac sententiarum locupletissimo.
1588* Horace; notes on emendation of Horace and Porphyrio
8ºH. Stephanus, Paris & Geneva (H. Stephanus), 1600* Paris (2nd and 3rd edi-tions of 1575 Parisian edition, which contained no Porphyrio)
Titulus Quinti Horatii Flacci poemata novis scholiis et argumentis ab Henrico Stepha-no illustrata; eiusdem Henr. Stephani diatribae de hac sua editione Horatij, & variis in eum obseruationibus. Editio secunda, quae, praeter scholiorum locupletationem, ali-quot insuper diatribas, & quasdam in veri Porphyrionis commentarios emendationes, nencon quasdam ad eos accessiones habet.
Additional Titulus 1600 Editio tertia, quae, praeter scholiorum locupletationem, ali-quot insuper diatribas, et quasdam in Veri Porphyrionis commentarios emendationes, nec non quasdam ad eos accessiones habet.
1632* H. lyric + Cerutus, Acro, Porphyrio, Chabotius, Lambinus, Torrentius fol.P. Bebius, Cologne (Birckmann)
Titulus Q. Horatij Flacci lyrica, prout in scholis Societatis Iesu doceri solent, ab omni obscœnitate purgata. Atque in eadem sex tam veterum, quam recentiorum commentarij Acronis, Porphyrionis, Gualteri Chabotii, Dionisii Lambini, Laevini Torrentii, Frederici Ceruti Paraphrasis, a quodam patre euisdem Societatis correcti ac superiorum iussu et permissu editi...anno MDCXXXII
1653* Horace + J. Bond + Acro, Porphyrio et al.
8ºLeiden (F. Hackius), 1658*, 1663, Leiden and Rotherdam 1670
Titulus Q. Horatius Flaccus cum commentariis selectissimis variorum: et scholiis integ-ris J. Bond. Accedunt indices Accurante C. Schrevelio
1701* Horace + ‘Schol. Vet.’, at al.
8ºW. Baxter, London (Awnsham & John Churchill), 1725* (Guilielmus Bow-yer), 1735 (J. Batley & J. Wood)
Titulus Q. Horatii Flacci eclogæ, una cum scholiis perpetuis, tam veteribus quam novis; præcipue vero antiquorum grammaticorum, Helenij Acronis, Pomponiique Porhyri-onis, quorum quae exstant reliquiae; foedis interpolationibus purgatae nunc primum fere integrae reponuntur. Adjecit etiam, ubi visum est, et sua, textumque ipsum plurimis locis, vel corruptum, vel turbatum restituit Willielmus Baxter.
1752* Horace; + ‘Schol. Vet.’, at al.
8ºW. Baxter, J. M. Gesner; Leipzig (C. Fritsch), 1772*,
1788* W. Baxter, J. M. Gesner, J. C. Zeune; Leipzig (C. Fritsch), 1802; Lon-don, Glasgow 1796*, Edinburough 1806*, London 1809, 1822, 1826
Titulus (begins as Baxter 1701) ...ad cuius secundam editionem recudi curavit et vari-etate lectionis suisque obsevationibus auxit Io. Matthias Gesnerus.
no-tis illustravit Guilelmus Baxterus. Varias lectiones et observationes addidit Io. Matthias Gesnerus, quibus et suas adspersit Io. Carolus Zeunius, prof. gr. litt. Viteberg.
1792-1793* Horace + notes, including ‘Schol. Vet’ fol.Ch. Combe, London (T. Payne et J. Edwards)
Titulus Horatii Flacci opera cum variis lectionibus notis variorum et indice locupletis-simo
1824* Ars Poetica + Porphyrio 8ºHohler, Vienna
Tituli 1. Q. Horatii Flacci de Arte Poetica liber, vulgo, Epistola ad Pisones. Mit aus-führlicher Wort- und Sacherklärung, nebst angehängtem Commentar des Porphyrio, herausgegeben von E. T. Hohler, Hochfuerstlich Schawarzenbergischem Hauslehrer, Rath und Bibliothecar
2. Porphyrionis Commentarius ex vetere codice Parisiensi impressus
1824* Ars Poetica + Porphyrio 8ºHocheder, Passau
Titulus Des Q. Horatius Flaccus Buch über die Dichtkunst, oder Brief an die Pisonen. Erklärt von Dr F. v. Paula Hocheder. (P. Porphyrionis commentum in Horatium de Arte Poetica.)
1831-1838* Horace + Porphyrio, Acro, Braunhard et al. 8ºW. Braunhard, Leipzig
Titulus Q. Horatii Flacci Opera omnia. Textum denuo recensuit, varietate lectionis in-tegra instruxit, optimorum interpretum commentarios subjecit, suas adnotationes cum criticas tum exegeticas adspersit, scholiastarvm veterum Acronis et Porphyrionis scholia typis excvdenda cvravit, etc. Guilielmvs Bravnhardvs
1858-1859 ed. F. Pauly, Scholia Horatiana quae feruntur Acronis et Porphyrionis
post G. Fabricium nunc primum emendatiora edidit F. Pauly., Prague
1859ed. F. Hauthal Acronis et Porphyrionis qui circumferuntur commentaru in Q. Horatium Flaccum, Leipzig
1864-1866 ed. F. Hauthal, Acronis et Porphyrionis commentarii in Q. Horatium
Flaccum, Berlin, 2 vols; repr. 1966, Amsterdam
1874ed. G. Meyer P. Porphyrionis commentarii in Q. Horatium Flaccum, Leipzig 1894ed. A. Holder Pomponi Porphyrionis commentum in Horatium Flaccum, Insbruck
